On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 09:47:47PM +0200, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote: > On mer., 2014-09-24 at 21:44 +0200, Yann Dirson wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 09:24:59PM +0200, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote: > > > On mer., 2014-09-24 at 21:17 +0200, Yann Dirson wrote: > > > > kdm is the default dm here, and I just switched from systemd. When > > > > hunting various dm issues, I found that asking lightdm to start > > > > results in the following unexpected error (it does start as expected > > > > when set to be the default, however). It should surely check the > > > > default dm settings, like eg. xdm does, and does not even attempt to > > > > start. > > > > > > > > > Well, that's exactly what it's doing… > > > > I'm not sure if you're saying that it does check the dm settings. If > > it's the case, then it looks like it causes the service start to error > > out, causing systemd to retry to launch it, whereas it is a perfectly > > legal situation for a dm to be disabled. In that case, it is a change > > from what we've been used to, and I'm not sure to see the advantages > > of doing so. > > Well, the same thing happens with sysvrc, the init.d script checks for > the default display manager and errors out if it's not the selected one.
AFAICT, it really looks like it just does "exit 0", as do other DMs. > > I tried to lookup any policy information about display managers, but > > could not find any. That makes me even more curious about how the > > collaboration among maintainers of dm packages is organized. > > See #733220 You mean, bugreports are the only collaboration ? I would have thought that eg. the debconf stuff that has to be shared (duplicated ?) in the various DM packages, could come from a central package (a debhelper tool ?), around which some sort of DM policy would live ? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
